UK Politics Thread II: Gladstone's Revenge

[Questers]

I'm quite glad I never got into Uni politics tbh.

So you should be. They are all parasites.

[Questers]

The ideal thing, of course, if we could simply wish it, is that all countries could spend 0% of GDP on weapons and soldiers. I say this as a person who intends to have a military career.

The thing about a military, though, is that it isn't important how much is spent on it now, or tomorrow; but in the past ten years.

I hate analogies, but...

an Army, or an Air Force, or a Fleet, is very much like a car. Suppose you buy a car and put it in your garage, but don't use it. How long do you have to wait until it becomes inoperable when you most need it? Will it work in one year? Will it work in ten? Twenty? Fifty?

Military spending isn't just spent on buying shiny toys that the Telegraph can worship. As well as armaments procurement, its also spent on keeping people in the services -- the longer they're in, the more useful they become -- on acquiring stockpiles of munitions (because these things degrade, btw) and expending them during training -- updating our facilities, and a whole host of things that don't get much public image, such as radio systems or belt pouches or tank suspension systems or whatever. The higher readiness you keep your armed forces on, the more expensive it will be.

Great Britain could spend 1.34% of GDP on defence. Why not?

But then what would happen if we actually needed to use our military the year after? Well, not much. What would happen if we needed to use it five years later? Ten? Fifteen?

If you want the country to be unable to use military force in a meaningful amount, obviously reduce spending. If you want it to be able to contribute to military operations overseas, or conduct very limited operational tasks of its own, keep it as it is. If you want it to be able to be the most powerful non-American NATO military, increase spending. Just be aware of what you're really proposing -- and be honest about it. Just bear in mind that consequences taken today regarding the military could come to the fore twenty or thirty years later -- and in a very negative way.

[Elepis]

why? Why not be like Sweden, Finland, Norway etc. They play a very limited international role but are not victims of world terrorism, are rich and have high standards of living. Imagine what we could invest in if we didn't spend 2% of GDP on defense. Sweden is bordered by Russia yet they only spend 1.34% of GDP on the military.

Fundamentally the peaceful lives that so many now enjoy is dependent on a world order that is, at its core, upheld by the US and its allies. This is an oversimplification, and it is not an iron rule (other factors are involved). However, one of the reasons we have fewer state-state wars now, as opposed to any period previously, is because there are nations willing to enforce an international consensus on national sovereignty. If you want a more realpolitik approach, the reason Sweden and Europe can feel safe from Russia simply expanding is because is the US and its allies act as a guarantor of their sovereignty, and security (one could call this a sphere of influence). This is also relevant for trade, sharing of ideas and knowledge, the movement of peoples, cooperation on things like recessions, diseases, and so forth.

The UK is a major upholder of such a status quo. The US does not often act without its strongest ally; it relies on us, and other Europeans for support. We have a vested interest and incentives to continue to uphold this global arrangement and that means having an ability to enforce such things. This is espcially acute, given our propensity to trade - trade is secured by freedom of the seas, and guess which nations are eroding that freedom?

You note Sweden, but recently, support for joining NATO there has surged, they are again deploying in Cold War bases,upping their defence spending significantly, and creating defence pacts. Even aside from this, Sweden, Denmark and Norway were some of the most enthusiastic participants in Operation Unified Protector in 2011. They recognise the reason that they have an idyll is because that idyll is enforced by strength of arms.

As such a consensus is now under threat, espcially in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, and all of these places have now decided to increase defence spending. There are sound and less sound reasons for this, but the fundamental point is that they understand that to protect various vested interests they have, they must be able to defend them. The UK also has such interests, and so, must be able to defend them.

Good points, I will admit I hadn't thought of that. However, does defending our interests at home necessarily mean air-craft carries and military bases in south Atlantic as well as following the US in to war after war while institutions at home crumble and The Osborne goes on and on about reducing the deficit. No one would doubt Switzerland's ability to defend itself for example but they haven't gotten involved in any major war for centuries. While I am not saying we need go full "non-attack ability" mode, do we need to project are limited power with shiny tin-boats to such an extent as we do now?

[Questers]

There has never been a European power which could not have conquered Switzerland. It is simply that no European power could afford the costs that would be associated with conquering Switzerland. It is not the same thing.

Even more so because the gains from conquering Switzerland related to the costs would be phenomenonally low. Switzerland only became a wealthy country in the latter part of the 20th century, and it has no other strategic value, and it has always sided with the winner in any European conflict as much as it could without breaking neutrality.

[Salandriagado]

I'd prefer a new union with new rules. I'd say a university going full blown independent would not be wise or safe for that uni.

I'm not surprised UCL sticking in though. Considering the err, controversies surrounding the last election and kerfuffles about BDS here.

There are already SUs that aren't NUS affiliates: St Andrews has been Non-Affiliated since 1975, Southampton since 2002, Imperial since 2008, and Glasgow, Dundee and Cardiff Met have never affiliated (though Glasgow has three different organisations, and one of them used to be a member of the Scottish Union of Students until it merged with the NUS).

[Vassenor]

There has never been a European power which could not have conquered Switzerland. It is simply that no European power could afford the costs that would be associated with conquering Switzerland. It is not the same thing.

Even more so because the gains from conquering Switzerland related to the costs would be phenomenonally low. Switzerland only became a wealthy country in the latter part of the 20th century, and it has no other strategic value, and it has always sided with the winner in any European conflict as much as it could without breaking neutrality.

We are talking about a country with universal military service and a fully trained militia, terrain that is incredibly unhelpful to any invader, demolition charges pre-wired onto every road bridge and some serious fortification networks.

I disagree with your premise that any European power could conquer Switzerland.

[Imperializt Russia]

What this country needs is to become more engaged in world politics, taking an active role in disputes, trade, international organisations etc, etc, in particular in the Middle East & Russia.

why? Why not be like Sweden, Finland, Norway etc. They play a very limited international role but are not victims of world terrorism, are rich and have high standards of living. Imagine what we could invest in if we didn't spend 2% of GDP on defense. Sweden is bordered by Russia yet they only spend 1.34% of GDP on the military.

The Swedish armed forces are defensive, not expeditionary; in absolute numbers, its forces are small so cost doesn't bloat as it does in larger forces; it has, flatly, less capability than other European forces to maintain. They downsized significantly once the Soviet Union fell. While Russia is still its obvious military threat, it is not the same threat it faced against the Soviets.

[Salandriagado]

Wasn't there some pretty worrying things in the governments counter extremism strategy? Other than that, yeah she seems pretty off the deep end. I'm quite glad I never got into Uni politics tbh.

You mean the whole "owning more than one mobile phone or questioning government policy makes someone an extremist" stuff?

*Looks at stack of three mobile phones*
*Looks at NSG posting history*

Guess I'm an extremist now.

[Valaran]

However, does defending our interests necessarily mean air-craft carries and military bases in south Atlantic as well as following the US in to war after war while institutions at home crumble and The Osborne goes on and on about reducing the deficit.

Not always, no. A lot of this depends on the approach one is using (or in the UK's case, the potential absence of proper approach) or predictions for the future; much can be looked at on a case by case basis. I won't discuss the specific examples you raised (I don't have time to write another long paragraph), if thats ok.

No one would doubt Switzerland's ability to defend itself for example but they haven't gotten involved in any major war for centuries. While I am not saying we need go full "non-attack ability" mode, do we need to project are limited power with shiny tin-boats to such an extent as we do now?

I might doubt Switzerland's military readiness (haven't read up about it), and its lack of an ability to power-project means that it can suffer just as easily from a breakdown in world trade, or order. And finally, it does contribute to this world order - it has sent peacekeepers to Bosnia, it regulates several conflict zones (like between NK and SK), and it used to deploy thousands of tank traps and assorted defences across its NE during the cold war. And they do prepare for any outcome.

[Imperializt Russia]

There has never been a European power which could not have conquered Switzerland. It is simply that no European power could afford the costs that would be associated with conquering Switzerland. It is not the same thing.

Even more so because the gains from conquering Switzerland related to the costs would be phenomenonally low. Switzerland only became a wealthy country in the latter part of the 20th century, and it has no other strategic value, and it has always sided with the winner in any European conflict as much as it could without breaking neutrality.

We are talking about a country with universal military service and a fully trained militia, terrain that is incredibly unhelpful to any invader, demolition charges pre-wired onto every road bridge and some serious fortification networks.

I disagree with your premise that any European power could conquer Switzerland.

The Swiss defence plan is to fall back into the Mountains. At which point, everything of value in Switzerland is eminently conquerable, largely without fighting.

IIRC much of the Redoubt is no longer in service, because it's a relic of the 19th century at best in terms of military utility. It downsized heavily during the Cold War, because a mountain bunker isn't that helpful against nuclear attack. I believe its militia has also downsized significantly, as the times have changed and Switzerland is no longer at the centre of a group of warring and competing empires, but at the heart of one of the most peaceful border confluences in the world, and deep within one of the largest international organisations to boot.

[Questers]

I disagree with your premise that any European power could conquer Switzerland.

That's fine but I am just copying what all major European powers thought.

They could have conquered Switzerland, and yes, with great, great cost. But they would have gained nothing from it. That's why they didn't do it -- not because it was some kind of mythical impossible task.

[Questers]

In the latter part of the 1980s, Switzerland spent 1.6% of GDP on defence.

Considering that its military was entirely self-defensive, and it had to spend nothing at all on a navy (and its airforce was incredibly useless; Switzerland kept Hawker Hunters in the 1990s), this is still more than most European countries today spend.

It also did not have to spend money on foreign bases or nuclear weapons, as the UK does.

[Questers]

The point being that yes, you could have the UK with a very powerful "defensive only" military which would be strong enough to deter invaders. But it would not be cheaper. Britain is an island and therefore must invest in aero-naval forces, which are expensive things. If anyone thinks its the strength of the tankless, artillery-less Swedish Army that is the reason Russia hasn't invaded, they are deluded.

[Moctina]

Oh, the junior doctors are on strike again, and this time they are pulling out all care, emergency included.
It is disgusting- it really is- and massively unethical. The vast, vast majority of these people will go on to earn lovely salaries as they progress through their career, as well as better deals in terms of hours. The very idea that they can call a strike, and get one, is grossly unethical, and massively hypocritical, in that they are jeopardizing not only patient care, but the relationship between doctors & patients. My own mother is a doctor (a surgeon,) who balances work between London & the United States. If she, or some of her colleges, went on strike, then they wouldn't be treated as kindly as these people are.
A perfect, modern examples of Union bully tactics against an elected government.
This is why I do not use the NHS.

[Vassenor]

Oh, the junior doctors are on strike again, and this time they are pulling out all care, emergency included.
It is disgusting- it really is- and massively unethical. The vast, vast majority of these people will go on to earn lovely salaries as they progress through their career, as well as better deals in terms of hours. The very idea that they can call a strike, and get one, is grossly unethical, and massively hypocritical, in that they are jeopardizing not only patient care, but the relationship between doctors & patients. My own mother is a doctor (a surgeon,) who balances work between London & the United States. If she, or some of her colleges, went on strike, then they wouldn't be treated as kindly as these people are.
A perfect, modern examples of Union bully tactics against an elected government.
This is why I do not use the NHS.

But it's totally not bullying when the Government decides to force the contract on them with no negotiations. No sir-ee.

Let me put it to you another way.

I have kept quiet on here until now about the junior doctor's strike but the time has come to stand up and say what needs to be said. Apologies in advance for the long essay, I will try to keep it simple. This is aimed at those of you who are not medical; those who are will know exactly what I am talking about.

If you simply believe what is said in the media, you might think that this is all about Saturday pay or even that junior doctors don't want to work at nights or weekends. It is depressing to overhear people express these views but hardly surprising given the public coverage of the issue.

So what exactly is going on? A junior doctor is any doctor who is not a GP or consultant who is in training to be one of those two. Most doctors spend 8-9 years as a junior but many stay as juniors for longer, especially female doctors who may take time out for families, academics who take time out to do research and doctors in specialities where training in two specialties is needed such as paediatric intensive care. I myself spent 14 years as a junior doctor so was still one aged 37. Junior doctors are the doctors you will see first when you go to A&E or get admitted to a ward and will be responsible for delivering your day to day care when you are in hospital. Junior doctors are covering the hospital 24/7, 365 days a year and always have done. And contrary to what you might believe from the papers, they don't have any choice in the matter, their contracts say they have no choice in working evenings, nights and weekends.

So what is all the fuss about? Well it is about being able to be safe. When I was a JD, I used to work ridiculous hours. In one job in my 1st year, every 3rd weekend I would go to work at 9am on a Saturday and leave at 5pm on a Tuesday. That was 80 hours in a row with sleep grabbed when the chances arose. It was dangerous and dehumanising and the even crazier thing was that I was actually paid at a lower rate for the unsocial hours than basic pay (1/3 of basic in fact).

Fortunately my generation of juniors was amongst the last to have to do that and things slowly changed. Now junior doctors get paid at a higher rate than basic for unsocial hours, that rate determined by the intensity of work in that specialty e.g. emergency room work would be a higher rate than dermatology. Standard hours are defined as 7am-7pm Monday to Friday (which are not exactly standard working hours for most people) and there are rules on the maximum number of hours per week and consecutive hours that can be worked. There are also safeguards in place so that if employers are consistently making juniors work beyond these rules, they can be fined; hence there is a disincentive for employers to overwork junior doctors, therefore they are not tired and dangerous 1990-style.

But work done outside standard hours is NOT overtime. These hours are contracted hours and have to be worked and, quite rightly, are paid at a higher rate than basic pay. In specialties where there is not a lot of emergency work, the majority of work is in routine hours, but areas like A&E, paediatrics, intensive care have a lot of work done in unsocial hours and attract a higher rate of pay for those hours. I stress again that this is not overtime; overtime is work done in addition to contracted hours. All doctors and nurses do overtime - staying late to complete work and ensure patient safety and very rarely if ever does anyone claim for these overtime hours.

But Jeremy Hunt wants to change the contract for junior doctors, his logic being that doing this will help to deliver the “7-day NHS”. Nobody is really sure what exactly this means. It may mean that he wants routine services such as outpatient clinics and planned surgery or scans for non-urgent problems to take place on Saturdays and Sundays, not just Monday to Friday. If this is the case then changing the juniors’ contract is not going to make this happen as without doing the same for (deep breath) consultants, nurses, porters, receptionists, pharmacists, operating department assistants, radiographers, physiotherapists and many other staff these things won’t be able to happen at weekends.

The 7-day NHS may refer to emergency work. If this is the case then it already exists. Junior doctors are already there at night and at weekends. The proposed contract changes are not going to change the numbers who are there as there is no plan to increase the total number of junior doctors. What is proposed is that the definition of normal time changes from 7am-7pm to 7am-10pm Monday to Friday and from 7am to somewhere between 5pm and 10pm on Saturday. This means that employers could make junior doctors work more unsocial hours as they have redefined as standard hours. It is true that the basic rate of pay for standard hours will be increased by 13%, which sounds great doesn’t it? Except that for the emergency specialties as above that routinely have a lot of evening, night and weekend work, what is currently paid at an enhanced rate will be paid at standard rate; even at 13% higher for standard rate, total pay for junior doctors in these specialties will drop considerably, maybe by as much 30% for some. Doesn’t sound so good now really.

And, of course, there will be the same number of doctors but spread over 7 days rather than 5 so there will be weekdays where there will be fewer juniors than there are now. A great analogy I heard was to imagine that you have a 10-inch pizza cut into 5 slices. You decide that 5 slices isn’t going to fill you up so your mum cuts the same pizza into 7 slices and tells you that you’ll be full with that. But she won’t get you a bigger pizza.

So same number of junior doctors spread more thinly is going to reduce cover on weekdays as compared to now. And weekdays are when not only emergency work but also routine planned work that also needs input from junior doctors takes place so this will have a detrimental effect on waiting lists for clinics and operations as well.

Junior doctors with children will be hit particularly hard, especially those who have junior doctors spouses, as more unsocial hours will be worked. Childcare is generally difficult to get hold of outside of 8-5 on weekdays; the department of health have actually said (with no hint of irony) that in this situation, family members who are non-medical and don’t work evenings or weekends should be asked to provide child care to get over this problem! It is very likely that couples could go several days without actually seeing each other or their families if rotas do not coincide.

But what about the increased deaths at weekends we have been hearing about? Actually, the statistics have been completely misrepresented and even the authors of the research paper that gets quoted regularly have pointed this out. The statistic was that if you are admitted to hospital on a weekend, your risk of dying within 30 days of that admission was higher than if admitted midweek. Your risk of dying is very low anyway and that very low risk is marginally higher (but still very low) if admitted on weekends. This is probably because admissions to hospital in the week consist of not only sick people but also well people coming in for routine things, whereas at weekends you would tend to avoid hospital unless you were desperately unwell and most likely would leave things as long as possible and so be sicker when you got there. Interestingly they also showed that if you were already in hospital on a weekend, having been admitted in the week, your risk of death within 30 days was lower than it would have been. Either way, there is no evidence of cause and effect in terms of numbers of junior doctors around at weekends. The so-called weekend effect has also been seen in the USA and Australia too so it isn’t peculiar to state-funded health as opposed to private insurance-based systems.

Interestingly the misrepresentation of this study has led to ill people actually avoiding hospitals on weekends and delaying presenting till Monday with potentially devastating consequences. Have a look online for the ‪#‎hunteffect‬. Scary.

Another worrying thing about the proposed new contract is that it takes away the safeguards against juniors being made to work ridiculously long hours. Whereas currently there is a mechanism that makes it in the interests of an employer to ensure the hours are not exceeded, the new contract removes these safeguards. It does suggest that each hospital trust has a “guardian” to whom junior doctors can flag up concerns about their hours but this “guardian” will also be a senior member of the trust who has no obligation to actually do anything about these concerns. I think back to my days as an exhausted junior doctor and it scares me to think that such unsafe and dangerous hours could make a return.

The pay scales are also changing. There has been automatic pay progression as you gain experience and seniority until now. The new system means that there are fewer points where pay is raised. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it can be argued that you shouldn’t get a pay rise unless you deserve it. But remember that over 10 years can be spent as a junior doctor in which time you are likely to acquire husbands, wives, children and mortgages; many existing junior doctors have made their financial plans for the next few years based on the expectation that there will be pay progression. One part-time junior doctor who has worked with me told me that if the new contract came in she would no longer be able to pay her mortgage and would have to sell her home. Bear in mind that these are young people who have spent at least 5 years at university accruing debts from both student loans for living expenses and now also £45000 in tuition fees before even starting work. The new pay scales do not reflect the levels of responsibility taken by junior doctors at different stages of their training at all which makes no sense whatsoever. For female doctors who are likely to take time out to have children and then return to work part-time, the consequences on their income will be huge. The department of health actually acknowledged that women would be hit unfairly but suggested that this had to be accepted as an unfortunate consequence.

The BMA junior doctors committee walked out of talks with the department of health because the DH’s definition of negotiation was that they would reserve the right to do what they wanted if they didn’t agree with what the committee was suggested. In other words, they did not want to negotiate so there was not point in the BMA trying. This is why industrial action was proposed because there was no other way to try to get Jeremy Hunt to talk. Sadly, even when negotiations restarted, he could not see that without a bigger pizza nothing was going to improve patient care and in fact things would be worse and so talks stopped. He has now said he is imposing the contract and that is that, he won’t talk anymore. When a strike ballot (of, let’s face it, intelligent reasonable and educated people) has a 75% turnout and 98% vote in favour, it is clear that there is a serious problem with the DH’s thought processes and they need to listen. It is highly improbable that a small bunch of radical lefties have brainwashed 50000 intelligent doctors who have been trained to analyse information and draw conclusions, much as the press like that idea.

If you have read this far, please take it on board and share with your friends. I’ve tried to keep it simple (even though it may not seem that way!) The public is not getting the full story from the TV and newspapers and if this contract is imposed then we will all be on the receiving end of the consequences eventually.

I’ll stop there for now but will write some more about what will happen on the days of the full strike (April 26th and 27th) and why you should not have to worry about what may happen on those days if you or your family have to come to hospital.

[Moctina]

Oh, the junior doctors are on strike again, and this time they are pulling out all care, emergency included.
It is disgusting- it really is- and massively unethical. The vast, vast majority of these people will go on to earn lovely salaries as they progress through their career, as well as better deals in terms of hours. The very idea that they can call a strike, and get one, is grossly unethical, and massively hypocritical, in that they are jeopardizing not only patient care, but the relationship between doctors & patients. My own mother is a doctor (a surgeon,) who balances work between London & the United States. If she, or some of her colleges, went on strike, then they wouldn't be treated as kindly as these people are.
A perfect, modern examples of Union bully tactics against an elected government.
This is why I do not use the NHS.

But it's totally not bullying when the Government decides to force the contract on them with no negotiations. No sir-ee.

They came into this job understanding they are not going to be paid £100,000 instantly.
I am sure many of them are good people. Some, evidently, are too greedy.

[Marcurix]

The government is willing to take a 25% stake in any Tata Steel takeover deal apparently.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36102835

[Valaran]

The government is willing to take a 25% stake in any Tata Steel takeover deal apparently.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36102835

Not surprised. Doesn't solve the long term issues, but probably better than the closure of the plant (as in, I don't like to see people losing their jobs). I don't think any buyer would have seriously considered purchasing the plant without some govt. sweeteners, so this may well be minimal cost for the govt. (both economically, and in political fallout).

[Imperializt Russia]

But it's totally not bullying when the Government decides to force the contract on them with no negotiations. No sir-ee.

They came into this job understanding they are not going to be paid £100,000 instantly.
I am sure many of them are good people. Some, evidently, are too greedy.

You have not made one single substantive opinion that wasn't blind rhetoric since you got here.

You refuse to make even the most cursory research into anything beyond your preconceived notions.
And it's quite sad, because these preconceived notions you seem to hold are fucking disgusting, and flat-out wrong.

And I suspect you don't even care. In your own little world, it doesn't matter.
"Fuck you, got mine"

[Moctina]

Striking is purely unethical, in particular in emergency services.
Police cannot strike. God forbid- the law & order system would be severely disrupted.
A major strike by Junior Doctors will cripple the NHS, which is under far too much pressure as it stands. If they were being asked to work 7 days a week, morning & night, then yes, they would have a case, and should demand public support- however, this is not the case. Rather, they are going on strike, putting lives at risk (selfishly,) to go against the Health Secretary, who is an elected Member of Parliament & a member of The Cabinet. Therefore, not only is strike action entirely unethical no matter the situation in this particular sector, but they are initiating it without a solid, public-approved cause.
As I said earlier, my mother trained in neurosurgery and became a doctor in the field after several long, hard years of training. She never worked for the NHS, and has always preferred the more lucrative world of private healthcare. If she, or her friends & colleagues, demanded an even higher wage, they would be told, pardon my French, to shove it. Admittedly, these people are not earning six-figure salaries- not yet. However, it is typical of many in this generation to demand everything be put on a plate for them. Work hard, tackle the high hours, the 'low' pay, until you reach a comfortable position, which, with hard work, you will. Children and families? Is it really a good idea to be having children & a family when you have such hours, when you are at an infant time in your career?
Safety?
How can the Unions claim they 'care about safety' when up to 100000 patients will be impacted by the next strike?
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 5492,d.ZGg
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... pc5vLwvLZw

[Vassenor]

Did you actually read what I posted?

[Imperializt Russia]

Did you actually read what I posted?

Obviously not, he edited it out of his reply and flatly ignored it.

It conflicts with his worldview.

[Moctina]

Did you actually read what I posted?

Obviously not, he edited it out of his reply and flatly ignored it.

It conflicts with his worldview.

Of course I did that. I am a Tory, after all.

[Vassenor]

Basically we've gone right back to the eighties and the government is hiding behind the OMG UNIONS ARE SO EVUL craic to avoid actually having to fix the problems.

[Imperializt Russia]

If they were being asked to work 7 days a week, morning & night, then yes, they would have a case, and should demand public support- however, this is not the case. Rather, they are going on strike, putting lives at risk (selfishly,) to go against the Health Secretary, who is an elected Member of Parliament & a member of The Cabinet. Therefore, not only is strike action entirely unethical no matter the situation in this particular sector, but they are initiating it without a solid, public-approved cause.

You don't even read a selection of news outlets it seems, otherwise you'd be fully aware that the doctors have a wealth more public support than the Health Secretary.
Even though by the second strike more people polled believed that the doctors were "equally to blame" with the Health Secretary than they had before, more people still blamed Hunt over the doctors, and overall supported the strikes regardless.

Jeremy Hunt was elected to be an MP of wherever his constituency is. He was not elected by the people to any cabinet position, let alone that of Health Secretary. His appointing (let's not sugarcoat it) to that position was not uncontroversial, given how he was unpopular even as Culture Secretary before being shunted elsewhere in the cabinet for whatever reason.